marginally subversive

LinkedIn versus Facebook: Shall they ever meet - and compete?

Will we ever see LinkedIn and Facebook meeting - and competing?

There is a view that most would have a Facebook account for 'fun' and LinkedIn for a more serious, professional image.  That's what I do, too.  I think - though - that there is more to LinkedIn that just that.

I have used LinkedIn to be heard - one of the major sources of traffic to my blog Marginally Subversive is my LinkedIn profile.  I have had projects - and job inquiries - on LinkedIn, and I have also established 'connections' (for lack of a better term) with other professionals in my field and with people who I would not have had a chance to connect with in the real, flesh-and-blood world.  I have, for example, academicians in my extended network - people who have accepted my request to connect for the purpose of perhaps, helping me out in the future when I hit a snag in my academic quests or projects.

LinkedIn's two-pronged strategy of generating revenues through subscriptions and through ads is interesting.  But I think there is more to that:  sure, LinkedIn's probably limited in terms of its inventory and its ability to deploy ads (i.e., it doesn't have Google's Ad-serving strength), but the quality of the people who are in LinkedIn is significantly higher than any other social network that I know of.

That's the beauty of social networks - the value of social networks do not rely on mere "quantity" and "breadth" or number of users.  The value of social networks is also based on the quality of its users.

Look at Facebook:  Its exclusivity to university students was what made it interesting and unique.  Now that anybody can have a Facebook account, its sexiness has gone - and it has gone the way of "portals" and "search ads".

LinkedIn's business model is by no means perfect.  But it is teeming with opportunities.  However, it should be careful with how it evolves.  Its users are what make LinkedIn precious - and I hope (as a user) they don't evolve into another "too-ad-driven" site.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Tags: LinkedIn, Social Networking, Social Web, Digital Web, Digital Advertising, Digital Models, Business Models, Strategic Planning

Privacy - Is it changing?

The issues that Facebook faced the last few weeks of 2007 have seemed to resurrect - or perhaps, inflame is the better word - the issue of privacy.  But I don't think it's merely all about privacy:  it's about reading the fine print. 

I know, I know - Facebook should have had done something about it by clearly informing its users to do something about it.

But I think that the issue points to something bigger - our evolving concept of privacy and our personal bubble.

Our personal bubble in the physical space, I believe remains - we still maintain a certain distance in the urinals (for men) and in buses and trains.  We don't want anyone's skin touching our skin in the subway or in the bus.  Even if it were accidental, we are very protective of it.

As this is happening, we are also beginning to strengthen that bubble - adding layers and layers of protection to this 'physical' space around us:  through iPods and MP3 players, through ear-phones, through PSPs and mobile phone texting whilst inside the bus.

Not only are we now concerned about being touched by another stranger - we are also building walls around us though these gadgets.

That's how we establish our sense of privacy in the offline world.

However, in the online world, we seem to act differently:  We join a social network (e.g., Facebook) that updates all our friends and colleagues what we are doing.  We write a blog and post our photos online - sometimes restricted to a few of our network, but most of the time, open to the public.  We follow people on Twitter - and we personally update what we re doing on Twitter.  We allow people to create RSS feeds of our blogs - our lives.  We publish to the world our Amazon wishlists - and identify ourselves as part of a 'fan-group' of brands, politicans, services, and other things - again on social-networks.  We make recommendations about books that we loved - and hated.  We make recommendations about movies that we hated.  We converse - video to video - on YouTube.

All these in full view of the world.

Sure.  We don't give our social security numbers and other personal details.

But it seems that our concept of privacy online has evolved.

Seth Godin, in one of his blog entries, suggests that it is because we are anonymous online.

But the thing is, all these have made us less anonymous online.

We are raising our hands to be identified as fans of such and such personality or brand.  We are identifying ourselves to be interested in this or that service.  We are airing our views online more than ever.

We are less anonymous.

By our own choosing.

And with that choice came, I believe, a change in the concept of what is private in the digital world.

Sure, credit cards and social security and financial records will still remain private.  But employment history, dating history, so-called social timelines in Facebook, friends and cluster of friends... all these are no longer as private as they were before.  Because we choose it to be so.

Am I reading it incorrectly - or are we also changing our views of what private is private.

Ready, Set, Go for 2008: BusinessWeek's Innovation Predictions for 2008

BusinessWeek came up with their innovation predictions for 2008 here. 

Their first prediction is "Innovation Consolidation", which will see the big consultancy firms acquiring companies that are known to be in the "innovation business" (such as Ideo and Jump) to "to bolster [their] innovation practice".  Is it likely?  I think so.  Considering that McKinsey, BCG, and Bain are all moving into areas that are traditionally beyond their expertise (e.g., marketing communications and marketing ROI), it is very probable that they would also look at developing expertise in these areas.

Related to this is the trend that sees the transformation of B-schools into D-schools, as well as the real emergence of the "experience-focused" customer. 

"Identity" replaces "experience" as the next big concept in design and media thinking. People create their own identities interacting with products and services. The notion of a consumer experience is a more passive way of thinking. It's so 20th century. Identity gets the buzz in '08.

One prediction that I thought was very interesting was the idea of "unfriend me". 

Who you're friends with becomes more important than how many friends you have. Exclusivity and privacy replace open community in social media. People move to gated networks from Facebook and MySpace (NWS), fleeing the commercialization of their personal information and relationships.

... which personally is true for me.  I have started "faceslamming" (to use a term that I got from reading Wired's December issue) and "unfriending" people.  I think we're far too connected these days - and such is the power of technology now that I can be found by classmates from high school and from university.  I don't really want all my friends to know what I have been up to, really.  I think this is going to be our alternative to privacy - or perhaps a new definition of what privacy online is going to be: a selective announcement of who we are, what we have been doing, and what we are planning to do.

BusinessWeek also thinks that Kindle of Amazon is going to catch fire.  As an avid book-reader, I am not sure about this.  As far as I am concerned, I still like the idea of having books in my library - although the thought of having too many books does cross my mind.  (I am a nomad.)

For the most part, I would say it's going to be an exciting 2008 for all tech companies and marketing companies (which pretty much is every company).

One thing's for sure:  it's not business as usual next year.

When "Atlas Shrugged"...

I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

When I was younger - 15 or 16, to be exact - and was taking my philosophy classes at the Ateneo, I had a chance encounter at the library with Ayn Rand's books.  It took me weeks - and lots of trips to the library to renew my library card - to finish Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.  In between classes, projects, case studies, and academic readings, Ayn Rand's books gave me a 'break' - it was all conscious breaks, however.

It was all worth it.

For some reason, I was enamoured by the speech of John Galt of Atlas Shrugged - to the point that in my philosophy of morality, I had an argument with my professor about Ayn Rand, Immanuel Kant, and Schiller.  (Of course, he won - he had a Ph D in Philosophy whilst I was just trying hard to be philosophical... Haha!)

For years, since I left the academia, I never got back to Ayn Rand until today.

And rereading Atlas Shrugged - particularly the speech of John Galt at this blog - it became apparent to me why it had so much an impact on me.

I have since mellowed down - the messiahnic and "infallible/impenetrable" complex that adolescents are wont to have have all waned.  I have since tempered my idealism - consciously or unconsciously, I don't know.

What makes the re-reading of the speech special at this point in time is somehow far deeper than when I was younger.  These days, I see this speech as a declaration of excellence - the drive, the admission, the unabashed commitment to excellence and being remarkable.  No, not perfectionism - but being remarkable and being the best that I could be.

Here is the part of John Galt's speech addressed to those who have yet to accept who they are - and from my point of view, to those who are yet to accept their ability to be excellent and to those who are apologetic (seemingly) for being excellent and wanting to be excellent.

The last of my words will be addressed to those heroes who might still be hidden in the world, those who are held prisoner, not by their evasions, but by their virtues and their desperate courage.

My brothers in spirit, check on your virtues and on the nature of the enemies you’re serving. Your destroyers hold you by means of your endurance, your generosity, your innocence, your love—the endurance that carries their burdens—the generosity that responds to their cries of despair—the innocence that is unable to conceive of their evil and gives them the benefit of every doubt, refusing to condemn them without understanding and incapable of understanding such motives as theirs—the love, your love of life, which makes you believe that they are men and that they love it, too. But the world of today is the world they wanted; life is the object of their hatred.

... don’t exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs. Do you hear me … my love?    

"In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man’s proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it’s yours.

...

You will win when you are ready to pronounce the oath I have taken at the start of my battle—and for those who wish to know the day of my return, I shall now repeat it to the hearing of the world:

I swear—by my life and my love of it—that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

 

Technorati tags: John Galt, Excellence, Being Remarkable, Remarkable, Seth Godin

Filipino Doctors, Professionals, Racism and Bigotry

In an episode of "Desperate Housewives", one of the characters asks her doctor "OK, before we go any further, can I check these diplomas? Just to make sure they aren't, like, from some med school in the Philippines?"

Excuse me. 

But as a pre-medicine student myself and someone who wanted to be a medical doctor and in fact, got accepted to attend - yes - one of the major medical universities in the Philippines, this is an insult.

In fact, it is not just an insult to doctors from the Philippines - it is an insult to all Filipino professionals who have graduated from any university in the Philippines.

I graduated from the Ateneo de Manila University - and just for the information of the writers of Desperate Housewives, Ateneo is one of the best-run universities in the world.  So are the rest - the University of the Philippines, the University of Santo Tomas (one of the oldest universities in the world), De La Salle University, University of the East, San Beda College - and a whole lot more other tertiary, academic institutions.

In order for me to get my degree from the Ateneo, I need not only be knowledgeable in my chosen specialization - I also had to be good in Philosophy, in Theology, in English, in Filipino, in Literature, in a "foreign, non-English" language.  We had to take all of these whilst we maintain our scholastic standing in 'specialization subjects'.  And our GPAs - which we call Quality Point Indices (QPIs) - are monitored year on year.

True, there might be - and there are - some who simply want to get by and whose simple objective is to pass their subjects and get out of "university hell" with a diploma. 

But there are some of us - in fact, I would believe, a lot of us - who strive to be excellent in whatever field that we decided to pursue.  There are some of us who never stop learning.  There are some of us who proceed to Harvard, to Stanford, to the University of Chicago, to the London School of Economics, to other research centers that make a difference in the world.  There are some of us who go on and climb the corporate ladder - inside and outside our home country.

And there are some of us who dedicate our lives to service - raising kids that are not our own, cleaning and managing households that are not ours, nursing patients back to health in spite of them not being a part of our immediate family, constructing buildings that we will never live in.  They are perhaps even more deserving of respect because they give themselves wholeheartedly to serve people who are not at all related to them by blood - "service by choice".

We deserve respect.  Filipino professionals deserve respect.

And we deserve more than an apology.

Saying "there was no intent to disparage the integrity of any aspect of the medical community in the Philippines," the producers of a television show that insulted health workers here offered their "sincere apologies" to Filipinos on Wednesday.

In an episode aired Sept. 30, "Desperate Housewives" character Susan asks her doctor: "OK, before we go any further, can I check these diplomas? Just to make sure they aren't, like, from some med school in the Philippines?"

"Sorry" just don't cut it, ABC.

 

Technorati tags: Filipinos, Racism, Bigotry, ABC, Advertising planning, Activism, Beliefs

del.icio.us tags: Filipinos, Racism, Bigotry, ABC, Advertising planning, Activism, Beliefs

Smart Economy: Predicting the impacts of any new technology

This blog entry from Walter Derzko is very interesting because I have always believed that nobody - not even the best in their fields - can predict the future with 100% accuracy.  Nobody, for example, saw the coming of age of MySpace, Facebook and Twitter - and how Google could monetize their services.  My belief is that we cannot foresee the future - but by observing what is happening now and why and how these things are happening, evolving, and expanding, we could catch a glimpse of what may and could be in the future.  The driving forces behind such shifts are far more important than the actual technology that will empower these shifts.

Mr. Derzko summarizes some of the common sources of errors that we (and including me) are guilt of when we look at new technology.  Below are his takes on the common errors that cloud our judgment when we look at new technologies (and I quote verbatim from his blog):

• The early hype error. In the stort term, marketers, promoters and eager inventors  seem to overestimate the impacts of any new technology and in the long term underestimate such impacts and consequences (see the Gartner Hype curves)
• The replacement hype error - the belief that new technology will  replace the existing incumbent technology & that this will happen relatively fast. In reality competing technologies often coexist over a long period of time (i.e. Radio & TV)
• The enhancement error-The belief that new technology will only solve old problems & supplement existing technological systems. Instead new technologies, especially platform or core technologies often lay the groundwork for entirely new systems and new resulting systemic problems.  (ie the electric motor for the railway, the car for the roadway infrastructure, the PC for the Internet, nanotech & biotech  for our bodies "intra-structure" (the Human Genome project, the HapMap & SNP's), the impacts of which we do not fully understand yet.
• The panacea error-The mistaken belief that new technology will function as a panacea for various social problems
• The patterning and sense-making error-The difficulty of seeing new important links between seemingly unrelated and different fields of technology, especially in cases where this novel combination of fields is precisely what will offer major accelerated development opportunities
• The social impacts error-Often people who have tried to predict the future have become bogged down in the actual technology and neglected the economic and social aspects.
• The prisoners of our times error-That without realizing it, people tend to be prisoners of the spirit of their times ( Zeitgeist), erroneously believing that the big issues of today will also be the big issues of tomorrow
• The decision criteria error-The belief that only rational economic considerations are the only factors behind that choice of one technology over another. However, for many people, seemingly irrational considerations determine such choices
• The information gap error-The information on which science and technology (S&T) foresight studies are based on is often insufficient. Technology development is not linear, transparent or fully predictable, with surprise development coming out of left field such as the secret work that is done in the military or a new startup working in stealth  mode before it goes public with a breakthrough. Entrepreneurs have to deal with many unknowns -complexity, uncertainty, equivocality, ambiguity, the trap of dichotomous thinking or dichotomy, contradiction or paradox and infoglut.

I think anyone and everyone who is interested in what's going to happen in the future should take heed.

 

Technorati tags: Futurists, Future, Predictions, Projections, New Technologies, Innovations, Diffusion of Technology, Technology Adoption, Trendwatching, Trends, Technology Trends, MEdia Agency, Marketing Sciences, Marketing Planning, Media Planning

The New Yahoo! Finance Pages: My new online toy!

I just discovered a new online toy tonight - and I spent more than four hours just trying it all out:  Yahoo!'s new finance pages.  (Well, at least they're new to me - and it says "new" on the website, so I guess it must be new. Hah!)

Anyway, I really like the way they have made the Finance pages more helpful.  For the last several weeks, I have been using Google's version - where the stock price movements were plotted against news.  It was, well, helpful - I thought it was sufficient.

Until I got to the Yahoo! finance pages.

I am into numbers - so I dove immediately into their charts and the "key statistics" summary sheets.  And was I surprised what I have been missing all along!  Google's version just simply pales in comparison to what Yahoo! has done with its finance pages.  I am in awe - simply in awe - of what I could do.

OK, granted that I won't probably use most of the technical indicators (such as the Fast and Slow Stochastics), but at least they are covering MACDs [that's Moving Average Convergence Divergence], Trailing and Forward P/E Ratios, analysts' 5year estimates (so I can calculate my PEGs), and whole lot more.  I am missing the beta, but then I guess I can check out Google for that.

Somehow, the news are still there - then again, there is more to stock movements that just the news, right?

I have tested it out on one of the stocks that I have recently been researching: Landec, which is into plastics.  It did help me feel better about what I decided to do with the stocks (buy).

Anyway, I am pretty sure that I will be using the finance pages of Yahoo! more and more. 

Now if only they could do the same with their Yahoo.Com.Sg site - can someone tell them that not everyone wants to see movies and kiddie stuff on their website?